You aren't concerned about the high degree of provincialism you have to invoke there to avoid begging the question?
Evidence for abiogenesis
- Thread starter SetiAlpha6
- Start date
The record in the rocks. The various common features shared by all known living beings. Etc.
That's evidence that it happened, and suggests various possibilities for how in fact things played out.
That it is possible is easily observed in every snowflake, every ball of clay, once you understand evolutionary theory.
Notice that when people look for evidence of life on Mars or somewhere, they often get temporarily fooled by nonliving formations?
? That's kind of silly. The laws of physics do nothing physical - they're laws.
Sorry, but none of these are adequate evidence for me, but I do understand your point of view.
Thank You!
Needless to say, post dated cheques are the bane of empirical investigation. The abiogenesis bandwagon has certainly got a lot of mileage out of this word "yet" since the early 20th century.
I understand, but disagree.
Simple does not explain complex.
Chemical reactions do not even come close to explaining the existence of life.
Not even close.
Only because you don't understand chemistry.
I don't see the planet earth as a "province".
Of course not.
You clearly aren't following the argument at all.
They are adequate evidence for anyone who understands basic evolutionary theory.
As noted, your responses reveal major gaps in your "understanding". You have no idea what evolutionary theory is, for example. Have you taken high school biology?
- - - -
btw: have the powers that be given up on these threads yet? The oA theists who post on science forums are never - never - going to present evidence for the reality of their God, or discuss the matter honestly. That's not why they are here.
And the naysayers have been wrong every step of the way. "You can't make amino acids from simple chemicals!" Yes we can. And so on.
Because there was once a belief that simple chemicals could not become complex chemicals (i.e. the ones that life uses.) Miller-Urey and its followon experiments proved that false.
Because there was once a belief that complex chemicals, on their own, could not show signs of life. UCSD-Scripps proved that wrong in 2014.
So we have a case where we have observed two out of the three steps of the process being possible. And we have a line of sight on the third. So that is very good evidence that God is not required for life to begin.
Theory explains. Explain a snowflake, for example.
If you frame it as the ultimate context for life, isolated from any cause outside of itself, its obvious you would face tremendous difficulties to think otherwise.
As the joke goes, you have to watch out for the last step ... it's a big one.
I frame it as the only evidenced context for life. The thread is about evidence, after all.
But it's supposed to be about you providing evidence for God.
Perhaps. But that was once believed for ALL the steps.
In any case, since the "impossibility" of life evolving on its own (and thus providing proof of God) has been reduced by at least 2/3, it is no longer a great argument for the existence of God.
That is perhaps only evidence that intelligence (in this case, the scientist) can create some chemical reactions. Not create life.
That's fine, but then you take it a step further and try to play it as the sufficient context for life, plying your "no earth = no life". So the whole thing becomes an exercise in begging the question.
At the very least, this is not how empiricism works, nor is a claim on par with what is available in the field of gravity.
It seems others thought it was a good idea to invoke this so-called scientific version of "Simon says" to clear out the opposition.
I think it is evidence, as requested by this thread.
Not proof, it just points in the direction of an intelligent creator.
No. I said it is the only context we have. We are looking for more evidence. Why aren't you actively looking for evidence for God instead of smugly proclaiming that you have "sufficient"?